Communal Politics and Abuse of Religion in India:
Ways to Peace

Woodstock-Berkley Visiting Jesuits
Georgetown University
March 28, 2006

Vincent Sekhar, S.J.

India’s Plural Setting:
As the largest democracy in the world, India sustains a political system of 24 Federated states and 7 Union territories as “the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic,”� journeying with nearly 4,700 ethnic communities speaking over 300 languages and dialects. And as the cradle of several major world religions, India holds the majority 82% Hindus (out of which 24.5% belong to Scheduled Caste — the “untouchables”� — and Scheduled Tribes) with divisions and sub-divisions based on doctrinal differences, details of rituals and spiritual paths. 12.12% are Muslims, 2.34% Christians, 1.94% Sikhs, 0.76% Buddhists, 0.40% Jains as per 1991 Census of India. There is considerable interaction between their world-views, rituals and customs and, by and large, the different religious communities have lived in peace and harmony for centuries.

But because of its pluralistic nature, it is also more easily vulnerable to any disturbance caused by provocations. History shows that the meaning and the functioning of institutions and politics based mainly on religious difference have led substantially to communalizing of the whole Indian society and polity with the consequent intolerance and religious hatred. Several “rightist”� ideological groups and parties with their affiliation to particular religious communities have swayed the Indian political scene in the last one century: the Muslim League, founded in 1906, is active in Kerala and the Akali Dal, founded in 1920s, in Punjab. The Hindu Mahasabha, founded in 1907, became the Bharatiya Jan Sangh in 1951, and emerged as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980, which held the power at the Centre in the 1990s. Its growth has been tremendous.

There are a number of religious and cultural groups supported by the BJP, such as the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak (RSS), founded in 1925, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), in 1960, the Shiv Sena, in 1966, and the Bhajrang Dal. Their major goal is to establish “the Reign of Rama,”� (“the Rama Rajya”�) or “the Land of the Hindus”� (“the Hindu Rashtra”�). It recalled the ancient Vedic (Golden) Age, and wanted the minorities to assimilate Hindu culture and language, revere Hindu religion, and glorify Hindu ‘race’ and culture.

Constitutional Guarantee:

Given the plural background, India chose to be a secular, democratic country after long debates during the time of independence. That was to be its political identity. A secular state is usually defined as a state which guarantees individual and corporate freedom of religion, deals with the individual as a citizen irrespective of his/her religion, and is not constitutionally connected to a particular religion, nor does it seek either to promote or interfere with religion.
In its intent it is similar to the American constitution. The founders of American Constitution unanimously rejected the state support for a national faith. Attempting to impose a uniform faith through government action would offend the many citizens who subscribed to different faiths, leading them to excessive violence and passion. In many of the key religion-state issues in American life, the Court conceded to the interpretation of phrases such as “establishment”� and “free exercise”� according to the changing social conditions and religious diversity. It ensured the full freedom of religious groups to practice their faith and perform activities related to their faith, especially of the minorities.

Indian Constitution and Law Code on Freedom of Religion (Article 25) assures to all persons the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health. The State is permitted to make laws regulating or restricting any activity that may be associated with religious practice or providing for social welfare and social reform. Article 26 similarly guarantees religious denominations and their sections a right, subject to public order, morality and health, “to establish and maintain religious and charitable institutions, to manage their religious affairs, to own and to acquire property and to administer it according to law.”� Article 27 prohibits the state from compelling any person “to pay taxes, the proceeds of which are specifically appropriated in payment of expenses for the promotion or maintenance of any particular religious denomination.”�

In general, the Indian government has not been indifferent to religion but has attempted to treat and foster each religion in the country equally. For instance, a number of educational institutions run by the different religious communities have received public support and are aided by the State. In India, Gandhi’s model of secularism in the sense of ‘positive respect to all religions’ has taken precedence over the Nehruvian model of secularism in the strict sense (strict separation of Religion from the State). “Advocates of secularism in India,”� says Ainslie Embree “always insisted that far from being hostile to religion, they valued it.”�

The Framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to dismantle the structure of social discrimination perpetuated by the caste system (a system of social hierarchy) and also the possibility of religious discrimination in independent India. The existing social prejudices resulted in the continued exclusion of some caste communities from the social and public life. Hence the Constitution envisaged a system of protection of smaller communities by providing reservations to Scheduled Castes and Tribes and special rights to minority communities. Minority rights are seen as an instrument for ensuring equal treatment by overcoming structured patterns of discrimination, for protecting their interests, and also for enhancing cultural diversity.

In separate Articles, the interests of minorities are protected (Article 29, Clause 1), such as the right to conserve their language, script and culture. No citizen can be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving aid out of State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them. (Clause 2) They have their right to establish and to administer educational institutions, and the State cannot discriminate against any of them in granting aid on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language (Article 30, Clauses 1 & 2).

Critics say that though the concern for rights of minorities is a justifiable liberal concern, it has triggered off a process of splintering. For instance, the Hindu right-wing was unhappy over the special treatment given to the minorities. They have often felt that the ‘minority rights’ granted under the Fundamental Rights of the Indian Constitution undermined and discriminated against the majority Hindus and their culture. And freedom to propagate religion was considered “a charter of Hindu enslavement, the blackest part of the Indian Constitution,”� which “pave(d) the way for the complete annihilation of Hindu culture, the Hindu way of life and manners.”� Some of their leaders called this Constitutional ‘guarantee’ given to the minorities as “pseudo secularism.”�

The Constitution also guarantees “equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within its territory”� (Article 14). It prohibits “discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth”� (Article 15) and advances special protection for women and children, and for those that are socially and educationally backward classes of citizens, for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Freedom of Speech (Article 19, Clause b and c) allows citizens “to assemble peaceably and without arms and to form associations or unions.”� But the State can “reasonably”� restrict the citizens’ right to free speech in case the security of the State, or public order, decency or morality, defamation or contempt of Court or incitement are called into question.

Growing Communal Identities:

Pluralism naturally pushes people to construct and consolidate their identities. Already in 1937, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in his Presidential address to the All India Great Assembly of Hindus (Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha) held in Ahmedabad laid the foundation for Hindu Nationalism. He said, “The Hindus”¦ possess a common country, a common language”¦ Their ancient and modern history is common. They have friends and enemies common. They have faced common dangers and won victories in common”¦. Hindus are welded together during aeons of a common life and a common habitat. Above all, the Hindus are bound together by the dearest, most sacred and most enduring bonds of a common Fatherland and a common Holy land”¦ the Hindus must be entitled to be recognized as a ‘nation’ par excellence.”�

On September 17, 1944, Muhammad Ali Jinnah wrote a letter to M.K. Gandhi: “We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of nation. We are a nation of a hundred million, and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions-in short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of international law we are a nation.”� This was a major component that led to the partition of India.

The aftermath of partition (India-Pakistan) in the late 1940s was a savaging disaster “analogous to war,”� as Jawaharlal Nehru described it. The resentments toward one another grew especially during the India-Pakistan war in 1965, Bangladesh’s separation in 1971, conflicts in Kashmir, war in Afghanistan and also whenever there was either an Islamic revolution in other parts of the world or whenever their communities came out in protest against attacks on them.

The Muslims ruled India for over five centuries (13-17 Cent. A.D.), leaving a lasting impact on the people and their culture. Similarly, the British ruled this country for nearly three centuries (18-20 Cent. A.D.), introducing British system of administration, British law and order, English education, and Western medicine. They imparted a distinct (western) culture, which affected the various aspects of Indian life. The activities of the Christian missionaries, especially conversion, were all perceived as efforts at establishing their own churches and missions and topple the traditional Indian culture and Indian world-view. Such and other things have provoked the Hindu fundamentalists to make statements like this: “We were slaves for 1000 years, and now we have opened our eyes”¦ I demand that the government of India throw out these people (Christian missionaries) who are out to convert Hindus and ruin our culture, language and attire.”� Such efforts at constructing strong community identities have often been exploited by political parties in India to politicize their sentiments and use them in their greed to power.

Unleashing of Communal Violence:

We cannot deny that the Indian Constitution is one of the best in the world in its letter. But the democracy has failed in its implementation, especially when the minorities had to face physical and ideological threats from the fundamentalists groups in the majority community. We have a number of instances in the last decade to show that the Constitutional governance became literally bankrupt in the wake of communal violence, mainly because of strong religious identity, abuse of religion, and communal politics. This does not mean that minority communities could be absolved from being cause of conflicts and violence. Far from it. Christian and Islamic fundamentalism are well known in India. For instance, Christian establishment of churches by means of conversion, foreign funds and support, westernization of Indian civilization, etc. have often been points of contention and of disapproval among the Hindu nationalists. But nowhere in India are Christians labelled as the violent people. Whereas, the Jihadi violence has caused terror in many pockets of Indian cities and towns and it continues to be that way.

Case I The first prominent instance of mob violence was the anti-Sikh riot in Delhi in 1984. The riot took place after the cold-blooded murder of Indira Gandhi, India’s most controversial, powerful and longest-serving Prime Minister, by one of her security guards, who was a Sikh. The Prime Minister was perceived as desecrating the Holy “Golden Temple”� of the Sikhs at Amritsar, which had given asylum to the Sikh separatists and terrorists. In an organized massacre by politicians and their supporters, 4,000 Sikhs were killed in just three days and the author was an eyewitness to the heaps of ashes of burnt bodies in the poorest neighbourhoods of Delhi.

Case II The second instance was the demolition of the Mosque on December 6, 1992, (built by the great Muslim emperor Baber), observed as the ‘Black Sunday’ in Indian history.

Case III In the following year on March 12, a third instance, when there was a series of bomb blasts in Bombay metropolis killing 257 persons and maiming 713 others besides damaging property worth Rs. 300 millions. It was a reaction to the demolition of the Mosque in the previous year, well planned and executed by the Muslim youth, which generated the Hindu Shiva Sena backlash on the Muslims. During 1990-92 there were 4,300 incidents killing 3,350 people, scattered all over India, while in 1992-93 the focus was Mumbai, Ayodhya and Surat with number of incidents being 2,371 and those losing their lives were 1,030 if not more.

Case IV From mid-1998 there were wide spread attacks on the Christians, especially in Gujarat State and several parts of the country. John Dayal, President of the United Christian Forum of India, flared the Center and the BJP-governed state of Gujarat for “shielding the wrong doers”� and in his report he revealed that there were more than 120 cases of anti-Christian violence in 1998 and 30 churches were attacked in Gujarat state since December 1998. In summer, 400 Bibles were burnt in Rajkot City, 10 churches were destroyed or damaged and more than 30 churches were attacked in Dangs District of Gujarat state. In one such incident, an Australian Christian missionary Graham Stains and his two sons were burnt alive. The President of India condemned the killing as one among the “world’s inventory of black deeds.”� Numerous letters to the editors of leading newspapers and journals deplored over the events as “bringing disrepute to Hinduism,”� killing its secular spirit and mutilating the “history of multilateral culture”� of India.

Case V The Godhra train carnage in Gujarat State on February 27, 2002, was yet another horror of violence, reflecting the communal carnage. 57 persons, mostly women and children, were killed and 43 sustained burnt injuries when a train coach of the Faizabad-Ahmedabad Sabarmati Express, returning from Ayodhya and carrying the devotees of Rama, the Hindu god (“Ram sevaks”�), was set afire by a group of people on the outskirts of the Godhra railway station. Immediately, several cities and towns of Gujarat State were in flames. The Muslim minorities experienced their worst abyss of shock since the time of Partition in 1947. There were almost 150,000 people who ran away from homes and were living in miserable conditions in more than 100 relief camps. The Prime Minister went on national television to denounce the Gujarat riots as a “disgrace”� and a “scar on the nation’s conscience.”� The Editorials said that it was another example of a virtual collapse of governmental authority. They accused the Gujarat State government as the guilty men of Ahmedabad as no other government had ever been guilty of siding with the rioter. The whole government machinery blindly supported the rioters emotionally, politically and administratively.

Communal Politics:

A brief analysis of the above instances of communal violence would show that they are cyclic (cause and effect) in nature, built on previous incidents of conflicts and cleavages. Many of these and such other riots were perpetrated by politicians and their supporters, most of them belonging to different fundamentalist groups with specific ideologies and goals. In all these and in a number of other similar instances, the governments (both at the Centre and at State levels) have played “communal politics”� (based on Religion and Caste, sometimes termed as “Identity Politics”�), siding with different communal groups for their vested interests.

To cite a quick example of how religion and politics link together, Shah Bano, a Muslim widow, appealed to the court for her just maintenance. And the Supreme Court ruled in her favour in April 1985, overturning the legitimacy of Muslim Personal Law. It was a victory to the Hindu nationalists who regarded the Muslim Personal Law as violating national unity and human rights. Muslim conservative Organizations, especially Jamaat-I-Islami and the (Deobandi) Jamaat-I-Ulema-I-Hindi, agitated and fought for their group rights and finally the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s government passed the Muslim Women’s Protection of Rights on Divorce Act in 1986, amending the Constitution to ensure group rights. The Prime Minister contended that it would “further the secularism that was at the heart of India’s strength.”�

To give an example of how caste and politics interplay, in 1978 the Mandal Commission Report suggested that 27% of all government jobs be reserved for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) in addition to the already existing 15 and 7 per cent reservation for the Dalits and Tribals. And in September of 1990, the V. P. Singh’s government announced the implementation of its recommendations. By this, a number of low-caste groups and others like the Muslims (12% of the Indian population), the OBCs (45%), and Dalits (15%) would enjoy its benefits. Such economic designs and political alliances caused by its benefits with such groups added to the fury of caste Hindus.

India has a strong community sense. It is likely that people with a strong community sense do not bother about other communities. And, where cultural practices of religious communities are given a priority, naturally the authority of religious and community leaders is doubled. They will be accorded special status and treatment. The people will listen to them; even surrender their own ideas. Reasonable and even legitimate changes and amendments will have to wait for their approval, and so on. This is the reason why strong community identities have often been exploited by political parties in India for mobilizing the members of their community, to politicize their sentiments and use them in their greed to power. Unfortunately, such mobilization has often been the cause for identity politics that often lead to the extent of “state-sponsored or condoned communalism, religious revivalism, superstition and obscurantism.”�

In India, the problem of violence or its solution lies in the ways political parties and leaders of diverse ideological, religious and caste groups combine with one another. All these groups function in an organized manner in campaigning, lobbying, gaining support at different levels, bringing and defending lawsuits, etc. for their own ends. For instance, religious diversity moulds the manner in which the religious groups ought to consolidate their views, strategies of public action, persuasion processes, etc.

Religion and caste play vital roles in Indian society, especially in the policy-making process. They do influence public policy directly by influencing the sentiments and views of policymakers and officeholders. When these officials are chosen by public election, they are likely to share the religious values of their community. Even if such officials belong to another religious tradition, they would listen to the dominant religious groups who voted him/her to the office. Therefore the officials play an important role in translating religious sentiment into public law. But religion is not the only factor to influence a public issue. There are others like caste/party loyalty, regional culture, public opinion and constituents’ preferences, recommendations and other lobbying efforts, and personal credibility. In such a religio-political climate, there could be hardly any understanding between diverse faith/caste groups, and any small provocation could aggravate the existing deep divisions among them, finally leading them to open confrontation and public violence.

Way to Peace: Building Strong Neighbourhoods

While acknowledging every safeguard of rights by the Indian Constitutions and the hope evinced by the Court, it is also a national (Indian) experience that after every incident of communal violence had subsided (as in all the above cases), the government usually appoints commissions and committees to look into the causes, consequences, deaths, prosecutions, compensation and disciplinary action relating to that event and, sadly, the disciplinary action continues to this day. At times, the Government itself is held responsible for shielding the wrongdoers or acquitting its supporters. And even if justice is done, it is biased, one-sided, supporting a political party or a community.

But secularism is not governed merely by ‘constitutional’ and ‘legal’ measures. It is democratic as well. People have the duty to absorb its values enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitutions (Equality, Justice, and Fellowship) and live them up in their public life. It has to go deep into the attitudes and practice of different communities and groups in India. Secularism is social in character, to be tested by certain concrete projects. It is basically a communitarian agenda.

It is heartening to see that a number of secular, social advocacy/activist groups, human rights organizations, NGOs, journalists and media persons, patriots and well-wishers still dream the great vision of a violence-free, more-tolerant, secular India. They are the ones who bring justice to the forefront through the media. But they are few in numbers and the effects of their efforts are seen only at micro-levels. And it is not easy to get the masses involved in public affairs, when many of them have no time even to take care of their basic needs. It is a sad story to say that it is mostly the poor, unemployed, illiterate youth who are engaged in many of the events of mass violence. The enlightened masses have failed to build up a re-generated nation through building up a youth, conscious of democratic and secular values. It is also a fact that people are selfish, and fight for their own (individual and group) rights and interests. It is rare to find one group defending the other in times of danger, suffering, injustice, or killings. Say, when a Muslim is attacked, there is hardly any voice from the Christians or any other group. Had it taken place, many of the communal conflicts could have been averted.

India has a good system of local self-governance (panchayats and nagarapalikas). These and such other structures suggest another idea of a strong neighbourhood, where people love to live in close association with one another, respect and protect each other, tackle the problems together, and grow in maturity together. Saddened by the violence in post-Godhra train carnage, a noted socialist-journalist L.C. Jain exclaimed: “Had the local self-governments at the village level (“the panchyats”�) of Gujarat been properly instructed”¦to guard the State village by village at the time of communal violence, the scene would have been different”¦ It could have helped the law-abiding officials and the police to accomplish more and it would have put the brakes on the black sheep in the administration.”� And he cited the example in Andhra Pradesh State, which had formed joint peace committees comprising of representatives of all communities. This should be the order of the day, he suggested. “Each of the panchayats (village governance) should be encouraged to foster harmony and non-violence in their respective areas. These people’s peace committees will activate themselves in an instant, unlike the State officials and police who wait for directions from their political bosses”¦ It is our mindset, which needs a change. A mindset which appears incapable of grasping the truth that a population of one billion-plus cannot be governed by a handful of Ministers, officials or police howsoever proficient.”�

Hence the task of building and re-building a human Community! It could be done through building strong neighbourhoods, characterized by a belief in a Spiritual Vision that ‘God dwells in each one and in the whole humanity.’ This vision of the indwelling presence of God in the humans (and other lives) inspires and motivates the members of the neighbourhood to believe in and trust the ‘other,’ a basic attitude for human solidarity. People are different basically. They have different tastes, interests, needs, and aims. Pluralism is the law and reality of life. Strong neighbourhoods support the ‘pluralism-within-unity’ in a spirit of accommodation (and not an ‘unbounded’ and ‘unwholesome’ pluralism).

Neighbourhood communities are largely guided and governed by the society at large (by its material and moral forces, by its socio-political and economic influences). And there are those who provoke conflicts for selfish gain. Hence strong neighbourhoods have to evolve a system that would withstand pressures from outside and problems from within. Forming multi-cultural/religious groups is essential for discerning the situation and acting immediately. They could meet occasionally to discuss about the many things that affect their group living. Their timely engagement makes for peace.

Initiated and helped by such groups, the neighbourhood defends and promotes religious liberty, human rights, welfare, and fellowship. In a multicultural setting, the different groups should feel respected and accepted. One way of doing this is to involve the neighbourhood in common projects, in common celebrations. Celebrations involve people, bring out their potentials and talents, give necessary confidence in persons to take the lead in their neighbourhood, especially at troubled times. Identifying role models in all walks of life and celebrating their contribution to society and to their neighbourhood could be an encouraging practice for youth learning and youth-training.

Useful exercises like Yoga, Zen, Vipassana, etc., might bring the neighbourhood physical and mental peace. Even spending sometime together in relaxation and prayer could enhance multi-cultural/religious group interaction. It is part of the interior dialogue. The groups could use the rich religious treasures like the readings from the sacred texts, hymns, stories, etc.

There is also the need to revisit some of the critical and sensitive issues relating religion, politics, and public life. For e.g. issues like religious/cultural nationalism, secular humanism, caste and conversion, etc. in the Indian setting. These and other similar issues are to be addressed in a manner focusing on the many things that unite the neighbourhood than divide it. People in India need to be de-sensitized to sacred symbols and metaphors. “Religious symbols,”� says Lefebure “play a vital role in supporting violent behaviour in holy wars and bloody sacrifices. They are not merely finite expressions of the infinite God but also an instrument used to excite violence.”� Indian politicians have well succeeded in doing it for political gains.

The future lies in the continuous process of dialogue between communities in their neighbourhood. Governments do take steps in promoting harmony and peace among communities by establishing model villages in some form. “Samathuvapuram”� (Place of Equality) in Tamilnadu State and “Ayal Kootam”� (Neighbourhood Clan) in Kerala State are good examples. Governments do seek the help of non-governmental and non-profit organizations in nation building. These groups are busy in specific areas of people’s life. For e.g., economic, social, medical, etc. These organizations could help in building smaller mixed groups in the neighbourhoods. There are individuals and groups similarly involved in constructing Basic Human Communities (BHC). The government has a duty to support such individuals and organizations, just as it does in other economic programmes, like the Family Planning.

Now, is such an effort possible? Even scholars and enlightened persons are apprehensive about change and transformation in India, given their orthodoxy and conservatism, binding culture, legal/religious sanctions, etc. Even the literati are at times misguided and deluded. But despite limitations, I tend to believe that people have the energy to create settings for their own peaceful, harmonious life, for their own safety and other needs. Secondly, people themselves have a healing and transforming power. This energy is to be recognized and used to the full. Religion would not convince anyone if it were not to produce people of love and selfless service. Living for others is a discipline and an ethic, to be cultivated from young.

Building strong neighbourhood is not an alternative to the constitutional/legal model for addressing conflicts and mass violence. But it is a good civic supportive system to the government, and a tangible way to peace. A strong neighbourhood can create a favourable atmosphere through appropriate means. It may not assure its residents a total cure from all social and other evils or freedom from suffering and pain. But those who are in the neighbourhood could nurture this concept, imbibe its spirit, and assure for themselves a way to peace.